The problem is... insane statements like these. If you don't know what you are talking about, you don't need to always have an opinion. Nash is one of the top defensive forwards in the league, he's huge, and he scores like a first liner (top-90 forwards overall and per game) even in his bad years. Considering that you don't need to give him a 7-year contract like you would to a first line UFA, he has a great contract. If you sign a UFA first liner, you'll pay just as much, but with 5 extra years that will come on the tail end of the guy's career.
Not only will the Rangers get a first rounder for him, they will REFUSE to trade him for just a first liner, I guarantee you that. They will get much more.
Look at what the Rangers got for Gaborik who was making almost exactly the same (when the cap was lower) and had very similar career stats, BUT had massive injury problems, was in the middle of a worse year than Nash just had, was seen as soft which Nash never is, and was never anywhere close to as good defensively as Nash. The Rangers got a very good top-6 25-year-old center (Brassard), a 4th liner for whom they got a 3rd rounder (Dorsett) and a young top-6 defenseman (Moore). Brassard at the age of 25 and a cheap $3M contract alone is worth far more than a first rounder, not to mention that both Dorsett and Moore had value.
Considering that Gaborik:
1. Earned a greater percentage of the cap than Nash;
2. Had a worse year and a similar offensive career;
3. Was much worse defensively;
4. Not as physical;
5. MUCH more injured;
Nash should bring in more than what Gaborik brought back. The idea that Nash has little to no value is nuts.
I'm not saying Nash sucked. You can't be selling him as if he was 24 vs him now. Value should not be based on what he has done in the past vs what he has done in the future.
Nash and Vsnek have had so miler careers.
He has a ton of wear and tear so it's due to break down given his style of play.
His cap hit seriously hurts his value. The fact is cap hit plays a part.
Comparing Gaborik are apples and oranges. Sure, all it takes is an idiot GM to overpay.
Eric Staal got two seconds and a good prospect.
Sekera got a first and a prospect.
Coburn got a first, a third and a young defenseman.
Frederik Anderson got a first rounder and a second.
Reinhart got a mid-first and a very early second. He then spent half the year in the minors.
Not one of them has anything closely resembling the value of Nash even unretained. The idea on this forum is that Nash at half price is worth less than any of these players is nuts, just absolutely nuts. A huge power forward who plays elite defense is worth more than a first rounder even if he scores zero points, much less if he's consistently among the top NHL scorers.
Players have more value on an expired contract than those with high cap hits after.
Sekeras cap hit was $2.75M UFA
Coburn was at $4.5 M with 1 yr left
Anderson was an RFA (26 yrs old). He is s capable starting goalie and signed starting goalie salary.
Reinhart was a prospect who screamed potential bust. I laughed seeing Edmonto trade a later 1st for him. The likelihood of his success/ failure was equivalent to a player picked there.
Staal....he was traded for too much. He was not worth 2 2nds and a decent prospect. He also had limited who he would go to.
Nash on the other hand is $7.8 M ( higher paid salary) ...a team could get 2 $4M forwards for the same cost.
As a UFA to be he likely gets more value than now....something like a 2nd and 3rd with possibly more with retention. The 2nd could become a condition 1st if the team makes conference final ( thus pick 37-30)
All it takes is one idiot GM under pressure to try and win that season.
